« Ind. Courts - Benjamin Pfaff's law license reinstated [Updated] | Main | Law - More on: Kansas Supreme Court rules in favor of privacy of abortion patients »

Friday, February 03, 2006

Law - Kansas Supreme Court rules in favor of privacy of abortion patients

A decision today by the Kansas Supreme Court today may have repercussions in Indiana also. Recall that last spring both the Attorney General of Kansas and Indiana's Attorney General made national news over their efforts to obtain medical records from abortion clinics. An Indianapolis Star story at the time, quoted in this ILB entry from 3/24/05, began:

Attorney General Steve Carter is demanding the medical records of 73 low-income patients from Planned Parenthood of Indiana as part of an investigation that critics say tramples on Hoosiers' privacy rights.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit Monday in Marion Superior Court to prevent Carter's Medicaid fraud unit from seizing confidential medical records of patients under the age of 14 who sought reproductive health care from its clinics.

A Washington Post story quoted in the same entry began:
Two Kansas clinics are opposing efforts by the state's attorney general to obtain the medical records of more than 80 women who received late-term abortions in 2003.

The attorney general, Phill Kline, has argued that he is looking for evidence of child rape and violations of a state law restricting abortions performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. But clinic supporters contend Kline is on a fishing expedition that invades patients' privacy and is making a calculated effort to hamper the clinics from performing abortions.

Here [thanks to How Appealing] is a link to the Kansas decision, Alpha Medical Clinic, et al. v. Honorable Richard Anderson, et al. The ruling begins:
This is an original action in mandamus brought by petitioners Alpha Medical Clinic and Beta Medical Clinic arising out of an inquisition in which respondent Attorney General Phill Kline subpoenaed the entire, unredacted patient files of 90 women and girls who obtained abortions at petitioners' clinics in 2003. At the time the petition in this action was filed, respondent Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson had ordered the files produced to the court for an initial in camera review by an attorney appointed by the judge and a physician or physicians appointed by the attorney general. We stayed that order pending our consideration of the matter.

The parties' pleadings and briefs raise several issues: (1) Is mandamus an appropriate avenue for relief? (2) To what degree, if any, must the inquisition subpoenas be limited because of the patients' constitutional right to privacy? (3) To what degree, if any, must the inquisition subpoenas be limited because of the Kansas statutory physician-patient privilege? (4) To what extent, if any, are the petitioners entitled to be further informed regarding the purpose and scope of the inquisition? (5) Should the nondisclosure provisions of the subpoenas be enforced? and (6) Should the attorney general be held in contempt for speaking publicly about matters held under seal in this court?

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 3, 2006 05:08 PM
Posted to General Law Related